ASEAN still a valuable regional forum for dialog<\/p>\n
By Lee Kim Chew<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE: ASEAN, aged 33, suffers from post-crisis trauma,
\nbut is it ageing prematurely as a sunset organisation?<\/p>\n
A rhetorical question, perhaps, but it sounds pretty downbeat,
\ngiven the perceptions, as Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar noted,
\nthat the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is weak and
\nineffective.<\/p>\n
It failed to muster a collective response to the region's
\nfinancial crisis, and is still muddling through, unable to dispel
\ndoubts about its recovery.<\/p>\n
Clearly, the 10-member grouping could call for a steroid shot
\nto stay in contention, as the East Asian countries pull
\nthemselves up by their bootstraps and race further ahead.<\/p>\n
ASEAN's problem is that each member-state is too preoccupied
\nwith doing its own thing, and Indonesia, the worst affected with
\npolitical and economic uncertainties, is unable to bite the
\nbullet and take the necessary bitter medicine.<\/p>\n
No matter how they tinker with the system, ASEAN countries
\ncannot avoid the reforms that are needed to restore confidence.<\/p>\n
Do ASEAN members know what they must do? Yes. Do they have a
\nworkable plan? Maybe. Can they get their act together? No.<\/p>\n
This goes to the heart of the matter. There is a singular lack
\nof collective will, if not leadership, to do the right things.<\/p>\n
Take the backsliding on the ASEAN Free Trade Area (Afta). Some
\nmembers have gone for the soft option -- relying on protection
\nand delaying opening up markets at a time when the global
\nenvironment has become more competitive.<\/p>\n
Stalling on Afta sends out the wrong signals which will not
\nspur recovery.<\/p>\n
Economics was outside the purview of the foreign ministers who
\nmet in Bangkok last week to address some of ASEAN's current
\ndifficulties. For them, it is a dismal science.<\/p>\n
They did, however, send the pulse racing with the agreement
\nfor an ASEAN Troika, an ad hoc ministerial body to fix urgent
\nproblems affecting regional peace and security.<\/p>\n
It is a new diplomatic tool to prove ASEAN's viability, and it
\nwill be as useful as its 10 members allow it to be.<\/p>\n
The question is: What happens when there is a non-
\ninterventionist in the chair under its rotating system? He could
\nbe prodded into action, but no initiative can be undertaken
\nwithout the consensus of all 10 countries.<\/p>\n
This will be a big stumbling block. The ASEAN Troika was
\ndeployed to settle a violent internal power struggle in Cambodia
\nin 1997.<\/p>\n
It worked then because ASEAN has had a long history of
\ninvolvement to bring peace back to Cambodia, and the Cambodians,
\nwho were anxious to join ASEAN, found it hard to resist foreign
\nintervention.<\/p>\n
Could the troika be used now to end the bloody sectarian
\nviolence in the Maluku Islands? Indonesia says no, this is a
\ndomestic affair. End of story, however bad the contagion effects
\nfor ASEAN.<\/p>\n
The grouping could still redeem itself. The ASEAN Regional
\nForum (ARF) has proven its worth as a platform for the big powers
\nto get engaged. Significantly, the Chinese have pledged full
\nsupport for it, as have the Americans. And the reclusive North
\nKoreans are now its member.<\/p>\n
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer proposed that
\nthere be \"friends of the chair\" to strengthen the ARF. In other
\nwords, help ASEAN drive the forum to make it more effective.<\/p>\n
Australia's interest to get into the ARF's driving seat is
\nunderstandable, as it seeks fulfilment as a regional power.<\/p>\n
But its interventionist concept of preventive diplomacy is too
\nintrusive for ASEAN, China and India, which do not want to give
\nany outside power an excuse to meddle in their internal politics.<\/p>\n
Australia is also too close to the Americans for China's
\ncomfort. Put bluntly, it is essential for the ARF to be ASEAN-
\ndriven for the Chinese to stay aboard.<\/p>\n
As Jayakumar noted, the ARF is still in a confidence-building
\nmode, and the role of preventive diplomacy, which means different
\nthings to different people, needs to be clarified and defined.<\/p>\n
As things stand, ASEAN fills a void, no matter how feeble it
\nhas been in dealing with some of South-east Asia's pressing
\nissues.<\/p>\n
It remains a cornerstone of regional stability, and those who
\nwant to write its obituary are forgetting this. ASEAN has its
\nuses yet, and the suspicion about its impending demise is grossly
\nexaggerated.<\/p>\n
The writer is chief regional correspondent of The Straits
\nTimes.<\/p>\n
-- The Straits Times \/ Asia News Network<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asean-still-a-valuable-regional-forum-for-dialog-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }